Elias v. State
| Decision Date | 15 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2211,87-2211 |
| Citation | 526 So.2d 1014,13 Fla. L. Weekly 1435 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1435 Ricardo ELIAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert W. Pope of Pope & Henninger, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Defendant appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine. We reverse. Defendant raises two issues on appeal, but our disposition of the issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence renders discussion of the other issue unnecessary.
Defendant and David Pearce checked into a motel room, but later moved to a second room because the first room was too cold. Shortly after the move to the second room, the first room was visited by various motel employees, including a maid who found a rock of cocaine under the pillow on one of the beds in the room. The police were notified. They removed the cocaine from the room and began watching both motel rooms at about midnight. For the next two and one-half hours, no one entered the first motel room, while several unidentified people went into and out of the second room.
At about 2:30 a.m., a man identifying himself as Pearce called the motel front desk and asked to be allowed back into the first room to retrieve something he had left there. The defendant then arrived at the front desk and was taken to the first room. He was seen searching the bed near where the cocaine had been found and was arrested for trafficking in cocaine.
Defendant contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove the charge against him. We agree. There was no evidence that defendant sold, purchased, manufactured, delivered or brought into the state any cocaine or that he was in actual possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1987). Therefore, his conviction was proper only if the evidence showed that he constructively possessed the cocaine.
To prove constructive possession of contraband, the state must prove (1) the defendant's ability to exercise dominion and control over the contraband; (2) his knowledge of the presence of the contraband; and (3) his awareness of the illicit nature of the contraband. See Johnson v. State, 456 So.2d 923, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In this case there was no proof of the second or third requirement.
The facts of this case are not sufficient to support a finding of possession and control beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. See Hons v. State, 467 So.2d 829, 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Poitier v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial